Omar F*****G Khadr is getting $10.5 milion

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Yes

That makes no sense.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Give him his freedom? By what right (legal or moral) would Canada deny him his freedom? He hasn't been convicted of any offence in Canadian law? Indeed, he hasn't even been charged with one. To the extent that he was guilty of an offence under American law (which, despite his conviction, remains a rather controversial question), he has served the sentence imposed.

Well, technically he could be charged with high treason as a Canadian citizen:

Under s46 of the Criminal Code, a person commits "high treason" who a) kills, attempts to kill, wounds, imprisons, or restrains the sovereign, b) wages war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto, or c) assists an enemy at war with Canada or any armed force against whom Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities, even if no state of war exists.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.c...ticle/treason/

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

That makes no sense.

If what Delgar wrote, that I quoted, makes no sense - I do not know how else to articulate my thoughts. You disagreeing with that is fine, but not sure how it makes no sense.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Well, technically he could be charged with high treason as a Canadian citizen:



http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.c...ticle/treason/

In fact, he cannot. Section 48(1) of the Criminal Code provides that a person may not be charged with treason after more than three years after the offence is alleged to have been committed. So that ship sailed long, long ago.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

If what Delgar wrote, that I quoted, makes no sense - I do not know how else to articulate my thoughts. You disagreeing with that is fine, but not sure how it makes no sense.

There is no reasonable expectation for winning that lawsuit. We've already lost. It's a waste of money. Plus, we did it. We participated in denying him due process, torturing him and convicting him illegally. The irony here is that's the kind of thing the Taliban does. Why would we support that sort of behavior when we were fighting against that behavior...hence it makes no sense.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Would you rather we spend another 10 million on lawyers so that the courts could tell us we owe him 20 million? Hmm? Would you now?

If that happened, Khadr might be the first plaintiff to ever get the entirety of their particulars of claim. As I stated before, the particulars usually represent the best case scenario, which almost never occurs. It's probably equally as likely that Khadr would have ended up with zero, hence the compromise right in the middle.

Also, legal bills are expensive but not 10 million dollars expensive. Even senior government lawyers only earn about $200k/year.

The issue was more to do with dragging things out further and the optics/press involved in that.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

There is no reasonable expectation for winning that lawsuit. We've already lost. It's a waste of money. Plus, we did it. We participated in denying him due process, torturing him and convicting him illegally. The irony here is that's the kind of thing the Taliban does. Why would we support that sort of behavior when we were fighting against that behavior...hence it makes no sense.

Politically, fighting the lawsuit tooth and nail and having a judge decide the amount is a far better route to take in these circumstances.

You put the decision to award a very controversial money judgment in the hands of an unelected court. The Government can say, we did our best, but we lost. Don't blame us.

Further, there is a better potential for having the Speer family actually attempt to seek a preservation order on any judgment rather than having it leaked that the money was already paid.

Legally, yes, the government had no chance. Worst case scenario, they lose 20 million instead of 10; in the grand scheme of the federal government, that isn't bad.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Makarov

In fact, he cannot. Section 48(1) of the Criminal Code provides that a person may not be charged with treason after more than three years after the offence is alleged to have been committed. So that ship sailed long, long ago.

So you're saying there are legal ramifications for letting him be tortured for 8 years?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's probably equally as likely that Khadr would have ended up with zero, hence the compromise right in the middle.

Yeah probably not. One thing that has been noticeably absent in the fallout from all this has been any lawyers claiming there was much of a case, if any, for him not being compensated for the government's actions.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So you're saying there are legal ramifications for letting him be tortured for 8 years?

Not sure. It's an interesting question. I don't know all that much about criminal procedure (paging MBates) but it seems to me that the Crown could have charged Khadr while he was at Guantanamo within the three year window. However, at that point, it likely would have had to begin at least making reasonable repatriation efforts in order to better defend the inevitable Charter delay motion in the event that it took years to bring Khadr to Canada for trial. I don't know. Mostly just talking out of my ass on this particular issue. Hopefully someone else can comment.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Yeah probably not. One thing that has been noticeably absent in the fallout from all this has been any lawyers claiming there was much of a case, if any, for him not being compensated for the government's actions.

I was commenting on how remote the odds of him getting all 20 million that he claimed were. There was actually some chance of him getting nothing (although small), but virtually no chance of him getting the entirety of his claim. To state that there was some huge risk of Khadr collecting all 20 million is simply false.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Not sure. It's an interesting question. I don't know all that much about criminal procedure (paging MBates) but it seems to me that the Crown could have charged Khadr while he was at Guantanamo within the three year window. However, at that point, it likely would have had to begin at least making reasonable repatriation efforts in order to better defend the inevitable Charter delay motion in the event that it took years to bring Khadr to Canada for trial. I don't know. Mostly just talking out of my ass on this particular issue. Hopefully someone else can comment.

I was being sarcastic.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by blankall

I was commenting on how remote the odds of him getting all 20 million that he claimed were. There was actually some chance of him getting nothing (although small), but virtually no chance of him getting the entirety of his claim. To state that there was some huge risk of Khadr collecting all 20 million is simply false.

It's very difficult to say. I'd say the government was more worried about him getting the full amount than Khadr was with getting nothing though, there could be a number of factors behind his reasoning for taking the money now as opposed to waiting.

[Northendzone]

so does omar pass some cash to the widow and other soldier?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I was being sarcastic.

That's funny because I actually think it's quite an interesting question. Ironically, had the Crown elected to charge Khadr with treason in a timely way, it might have prevented some or all of the government's abuses that followed. Of course, I have no idea how strong a case for treason against Khadr would have been.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Makarov

That's funny because I actually think it's quite an interesting question. Ironically, had the Crown elected to charge Khadr with treason in a timely way, it might have prevented some or all of the government's abuses that followed. Of course, I have no idea how strong a case for treason against Khadr would have been.

No doubt it's a very interesting question. Had they dealt with any of this in a timely manner it would have likely prevented all off this.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by Makarov

In fact, he cannot. Section 48(1) of the Criminal Code provides that a person may not be charged with treason after more than three years after the offence is alleged to have been committed. So that ship sailed long, long ago.

That limitation applies to using force to overthrow the federal or a provincial government. There isn't a limitation on assisting an enemy at war with Canada.


48. (1) No proceedings for an offence of treason as defined by paragraph 46(2)(a) shall be commenced more than three years after the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed.

Here is what 46(2)(a) states:
(2) Every one commits treason who "...uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province..."

The above does not apply to Khadr.

But this is the paragraph that could apply to Khadr's situation:

46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Note that Section 46(1) refers to High Treason; Section 46(2) refers to Treason.

Further, a Canadian citizen "...commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1)..."

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

That limitation applies to using force to overthrow the federal or a provincial government. There isn't a limitation on assisting an enemy at war with Canada.


48. (1) No proceedings for an offence of treason as defined by paragraph 46(2)(a) shall be commenced more than three years after the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed.

Here is what 46(2)(a) states:
(2) Every one commits treason who "...uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province..."

The above does not apply to Khadr.

But this is the paragraph that could apply to Khadr's situation:

46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Note that Section 46(1) refers to High Treason; Section 46(2) refers to Treason.

Further, a Canadian citizen "...commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1)..."

Well, that'll teach me to skim on my phone. Thanks for the correction.

[Makarov]

Interestingly, I believe only one person in Canadian history has ever been convicted of treason.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's probably equally as likely that Khadr would have ended up with zero, hence the compromise right in the middle.

Also, legal bills are expensive but not 10 million dollars expensive. Even senior government lawyers only earn about $200k/year.

The issue was more to do with dragging things out further and the optics/press involved in that.

We've already spent five million trying to defend three preliminary hearings on this case. Five million and the civil case hasn't even been litigated in front of a queen's bench judge. It might not be ten million but by the time it hits the supreme court it would be multi millions for sure.

Also, we lost all three hearings. There's no way we win that case. Why would you risk losing way more than 10.5 million so that you might have a chance of losing more than 10.5 million? It makes literally no sense.

As for the optics involved, fighting tooth and nail for our right to torture people we don't like and hold up coerced confessions as valid? Yeah that's not a country I want to live in. Shady tactics and for that reason I'm out.